The moral choices during war begin at the first choice of deciding whether to go into war. In this regard, war has different outcomes, which include victory or loss. These decisions affect the functioning of an individual during war because if the mind does not support the war, the body may not put in its full strength into the war. Greater deals of the choices that face an individual during war depict their leadership skills and the choices they would make as leaders. Going to war shows courage and bravery as well as a belief in a purpose while the opposite may depict cowardice and lack of confidence.
As reflected during war, the elements of decision-making, and an individual’s ability to make accurate decisions with the right moral considerations comes to play. On the part of leadership, the greater leaders appear as those who have mastered the art of being decisive on difficult situations whilst maintaining a high level of self and emotional control (Christie 54). Furthermore, they possess and display an ability to proactively handle the repercussions whenever the decisions to take on a way go bad. Therefore, the moral choices in war and the decisions made by a leader depict the ability to hold no one`s locus of control (Reeve 18). However, the challenge greatly lies in taking charge when decisions made bear negative implications.
As depicted in Lone Survivor, the “Operation Red Wings” required a significant amount of decision making with considerations on the morality of war. This includes the goal to engage in a disruption for the anti-coalition and reduce the militia activity within the region of Kunar Province. The moral agenda in this situation was that the reduction militia activity in the region would increase the stability in terms of political environment thus bringing victory to the stabilization agenda. Furthermore, it was of greater importance to locate the positioning of the Taliban leader by the name of Ahmad Shah because capturing him would render the Taliban division and other militia groups powerless. However, on the other perspective, the war or mission in this case would have casualties or would go wrong. The unpredictability of war in this situation and other cases of war poses a threat in the nature and cause for calling for a war.
The question regarding the moral clarity of war applies not majorly on the decisions of going to war but mainly on the decisions made during the war. In this case, it reflects the war-zone decisions. The difference in the nature and purpose of war also calls for the questioning of morality. For example, some wars waged in the past had the purpose of territorial conquest and kingdom expansion and in this case, the moral question posed is the purpose to use military prowess to overpower weaker regions and communities. However, although individuals who make decisions in the boardrooms had better understand the purpose of war, those on the ground feel the pain and hatred during the war. Clearly, men on the ground undergo the suffering “ the locals didn’t love us either (Luttrell 11)”. In this regard, the purpose of war may be seemingly justifiable due to greater goal but it appears that it may lead to more problems than the intended solutions.
The moral principles of the leaders that take men to war invoke a second thought on the purpose of war. The soldier undergoes a period of loneliness but has to remain on the right course and defend the objectives given by the leader. At most, the soldier may be playing a game of pretense or may not understand the actual red line during the war thus bringing forth a situation of moral scars. “Service is selflessness (Luttrell 41)”, although films that show different troupes on military missions entertain millions of people, the same films depict the moral situation during war. Nonetheless, it appears that although the effects of war are known the moral choices impact on a number of lives. From the top, the moral choice to send a soldier to war, thus placing their lives at risk and sending them to bring victory to people who are safe back home poses one of the moral questions in war. However, the acceptance to go to war appears as greater love for the happiness of many people this showing acts of selflessness and giving away the leisure’s of life.
The soldiers who take part during war are faced with a significant amount of moral decisions to make. Making these decisions may blow their cover and reveal their identity thus affecting the entire mission (Herzog 78). For example, one of these decisions is evident in the reading as the soldiers are uncertain on whether to reveal to the Taliban that they are SEALs. Revealing their identity to the Taliban militia group makes these soldiers a direct threat, which would lead to an execution of the four soldiers. Additionally, other decisions appear to disturb the soldiers. On the mountain, the soldiers ponder on whether to release the goat herder or kill them. The goat herders had already identified the men as American soldiers from the SEALs department in the army. In this regard, letting them go would compromise the mission in the region because the herders would expose the soldiers to the Taliban. However, on a different view the soldiers would kill innocent individuals who would thus become victims of the war. The moral decision, which in this case appears as the right choice, was leaving the herders free and relocating thus trying to select a new location. Evidently, it takes both leadership and tact in decision making to make the right moral decisions during war (Moore 113).
At war, the leader seeks to protect his soldiers and have a great outcome from all the decisions made. Nonetheless, leaders can make good and important decisions that bear less optimal outcomes than expected. A few moments from the release of the goat, herders Taliban force members surround the soldiers at an elevated position (Grimsrud 122). A horrific gun battle ensues from the situation and the soldiers suffer a great loss from this situation. It indicates that during war, a leader may attempt to visualize and select the most optimal solution to problems encountered but the consequences of all decisions may haunt the leader and the entire pack. The moral choice in the case above was to let the herders free; however, the results of this choice bring a loss to the team (Michio, and Minear 56). The question on this matter is whether an individual or leader expected to direct should make decisions with the interest of his soldiers at heart or that of civilians at heart.
The outcomes of war indicate clearly that all individuals have a stake at the consequences that ensue during a war. Clearly, no individual can escape his or her moral choice and the consequences that ensue during war. The other decisions on selecting the option to go to war include the conceptual and physical, but they all revolve around the moral reasoning and choices made by either party (Franceschet 33). The physical motivates an individual because they build confidence on the equipment and envision a victory due to the sophisticated machinery. The conceptual aspect motivates going to war because the soldiers have enough ideas that they will engage during the war. The said ideas present a greater advantage and more opportunities to win over the said enemy. Therefore, relying on the physical and conceptual factors that develop the motivation to go to war means that a soldier uses these factors in further making their moral decisions. For example, with the confidence on the physical abilities and enough machinery to go to war, a soldiers moral choices focus on how to apply the weaponry. For example, the choice will be whether to use a nuclear-based weapon thus increasing the magnitude of an attack or to use smaller weapons. Additionally, the physical aspect influences the individual’s decisions on whether to engage the full force and physical abilities or whether to use limited force until the intended situation is arrived (Sze 102). For example, killing all the Taliban to achieve the stability in the region or to kill the leader and destabilize the group.
Furthermore, the conceptual abilities to go to war are factors that influence the moral decisions. For example, the skills and tact to develop a successful attack using few resources drawn from past war experiences give soldiers confidence on making decisions during war. However, the moral aspect of these decisions is evident. For example, staging an attack and using fewer personnel means that fewer soldiers are exposed to the eminent risk of loss of life. Similarly, using more soldiers presents more chances of a highly coordinated attack, which therefore presents an opportunity for victory (David, and Card 32). The two sides depict the moral choices that face the soldiers not only those from the Lone Survivor but also others in the battlefields. Although war films provide entertainment, the moral choices depicted are stage-managed. However, the real experience and situation hits the leaders and decision makers who hold people’s lives with their choices.
Other moral decisions apply onto the people who remain at home during any war. Their support and prayers to the soldiers sent to warzones. The remuneration and support for the families of the deployed soldiers being the point of concern in this situation. For example, ongoing debates on how to assist the families of deployed soldiers to cope with the emotional and behavioral change have recommendations that take long before approval. In this regard, it appears that the role and great task performed by soldiers is easily forgotten. With the evidence on great challenges that soldiers, undergo “Americans should never forget that the founders of this country were willing to die defending everything its flag represents (Luttrell 88).” In a similar fashion, the soldiers sent to war need respect in accordance to their great works in serving the nation.
Works Cited
Chan, David K., and Claudia Card. Beyond Just War: A Virtue Ethics Approach. Basingstoke [England: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. Print.
Christie, Dolores L. Moral Choice: A Christian View of Ethics. Vol. 1. New Brunswick, [N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2013. Print.
Franceschet, Antonio. The Ethics of Global Governance. Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner, 2009. Print.
Grimsrud, Ted. Good War That Wasn't--and Why It Matters: World War Ii's Moral Legacy. Place of Publication Not Identified: Cascade, 2014. Print.
Herzog, Tobey C. Vietnam War Stories: Innocence Lost. Vol. 1. London: Brown Book Group, 2003. Print.
Luttrell, Marcus. Lone Survivor. New York: Brown Book Group, 2010. Print.
Moore, Jonathan. Hard Choices: Moral Dilemmas in Humanitarian Intervention. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2008. Print.
Reeve, Philip. A Darkling Plain. New York: EOS, 2007. Print.
Sze, Jennifer Ang Mei. Sartre and the Moral Limits of War and Terrorism. New York: Routledge, 2010. Print.
Takeyama, Michio, and Richard H. Minear. The Scars of War: Tokyo during World War II : Writings of Takeyama Michio. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Pub., 2007. Print.
